The present invention relates to a synergistic fungicidal composition comprising bioactive and effective amounts of at least one strobilurin fungicide or its agrochemically acceptable salts; at least one triazole fungicide or its agrochemically acceptable salts; and sub-fungicidal amount of Sulphur. Particularly, the present invention relates to a synergistic fungicidal composition comprising at least one strobilurin fungicide in the range of 5 to 50 wt%; at least one triazole fungicide in the range of 5 to 70 wt%; and Sulphur in the range of 1-7 wt% along with agrochemically acceptable adjuvants. The present invention further relates to a synergistic fungicidal composition comprising at least one strobilurin fungicide in the range of 5 to 50 wt%; at least one triazole fungicide in the range of 5 to 70 wt%; and Sulphur in the sub- fungicidal active range of 1-7 wt% which uses organosilicone surfactants as spreading and sticking agents and bio based efficacy enhancing agents. The present invention also relates to a process for preparation of such synergistic fungicidal composition comprising a combination of fungicides and sub- fungicidal active amount of Sulphur present as a catalyst/performance enhancer which uses organosilicone surfactants/ Silicone Ethoxylated Oil as spreading and sticking agents and bio based efficacy enhancing agents. BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION Fungicides are compounds, of natural or synthetic origin, which act to protect plants against damage caused by fungi. Current methods of agriculture rely heavily on the use of fungicides. In fact, some crops cannot be grown usefully without the use of fungicides. Using fungicides allows a grower to increase the yield and the quality of the crop and consequently, increase the value of the crop. In most situations, the increase in value of the crop is worth at least three times the cost of the use of the fungicide. Most crop and ornamental plants are subject to attack by several fungi. Damage due to plant pests to ornamentals, vegetable, field, cereal and fruit crops can cause significant reduction in productivity and thereby result in increased cost to the consumer. In addition to often being highly destructive, plant fungi can be difficult to control and may develop resistance to indiscriminate use of commercial fungicides. The diversity of these organisms and their potential for inciting serious disorders in combination or singly has resulted in the need for broad-spectrum disease control tools. Although there are available numerous chemical compounds (fungicides), which aid in preventing diseases of plants, each of these has practical deficiencies, which restrict its use. Furthermore, certain rare combinations of fungicides demonstrate a greater-than-additive (i.e. synergistic) effect to provide commercially important levels of plant disease control. The main concern with the repeated use of fungicide in solo formulations is the development of resistance by the pests for that particular fungicide and at the end one has to apply more concentrated formulation of the fungicide. The high amount of fungicide may result in the toxicity to human beings as well as have bad effects on the environment. When two or more substances in combination demonstrate unexpectedly high biological activity, for example fungicidal activity, the resultant phenomenon may be referred to as synergism. In order to achieve the high crop productivity, it is important to control the plant from damages which can be caused by plant fungi and other pathogenic (disease-causing) organisms. Although there are available numerous chemical compounds (fungicides), which aid in preventing diseases of plants, each of these have practical deficiencies, which restrict its use or warrants repeated applications. Further demands on fungicidal compositions include reduced phytotoxicity, reduced dosage, increased uptake of active ingredients for faster control, increased shelf-life and stability of the fungicidal formulation, substantial broadening of spectrum and increased safety, to name a few. The biological properties of known compounds are not entirely satisfactory in the areas of plant pest control, environmental and worker exposure, for example in particular, it has been observed that pathogens become resistant to pesticides which are at times administered in higher dosages to achieve the desired control, thereby leading to soil toxicity and other environmental hazards, besides higher costs. Combinations of fungicides are often used to facilitate pest control, to broaden the spectrum of control and to retard resistance development. Accordingly, new advantageous combinations are needed to provide a variety of options to best satisfy multiple plant pest control needs. Further, there has been a need in the art to provide a synergistic pesticidal composition with a combination of fungicides with higher uptake of A.I with enhanced efficacy, reduced toxicity and increased shelf life and stability. There is a need for a synergistic combination which can provide broad spectrum control while having reduced rate of application and dose and yet provide enhanced disease control efficacy resulting in enhanced plant/crop yield. Conventional fungicide compositions sometimes do not show a practically sufficient control effect on plant pests depending on an applying situation, since it has an insufficient effect on particular plant pathogenesis either by working slowly against the targeted pathogens or its residual effectiveness lasts for a relatively short period. In view of the above, obtaining a fungicidal combination which demonstrates no cross-resistance to the existing fungicidal agents, no toxicity problems and little negative impact on the environment with improved rain fastness and reduced pest resistance, is extremely difficult. Apart from synergistic effect and increased bio-efficacy, to draw the dose optimization and reduction in cost per hectare (ha), it is also important to have a crop solution which entrusts the resistance management which results very often in various pesticides due to repeated spray rounds during the single crop cycle. Further, in the agrochemical industry, Sulphur is used as a non-systemic contact and protectant fungicide with secondary acaricidal activity. Sulphur is also used to make fertilizers which is essential for plant growth. However, Sulphur when used as fungicide or as fertiliser in very high doses ( is toxic to plants at critical growth stages especially during flowering and fruitling. However, use of Sulphur as catalytic and having preservative properties when used in extremely reduced dosages, is not known in the art Thus, there has been a need to provide a fungicidal composition with a combination of fungicides and reduced amount of sulphur which are compatible with each other in terms of stability but still provide enhanced efficacy and synergistic effect over the solo and/ or binary formulations of the respective active ingredients. Thus, it is an objective of this invention to provide a synergistic fungicidal composition with a synergetic combination of fungicides and a catalyst/ performance enhancer which demonstrates increased uptake of active ingredients, high and faster disease control efficiency, with broad spectrum control, reduced plant toxicity, along with reduced crop protection cost and reduced environmental load along with increased shelf life and stability of the formulation. An object of the present invention is to provide a fungicidal composition having a remarkably improved control effect on plant pathogenesis by combining fungicides and reduced amount of sulphur which acts as a catalyst/ performance enhancer and a method for controlling a plant infestation and thus, providing a broad-spectrum fungicide control which has increased uptake of active ingredient, is efficacious with low inhalational and dermal toxicity and has longer shelf life and enhanced stability. Further, it is known in the art that certain, agrochemical formulations especially fungicidal compositions which are prepared are not stable and use volatile organic compounds, which are harmful to plant health and the environment. It is seen in the art that compositions comprising strobilurin fungicide and/or triazole fungicide with Sulphur use surfactants and solvents, spreading agents which are based on volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and hence are not eco-friendly and are toxic to the plant health. Thus, in order to further increase the spreading and penetration of the active fungicidal components with Sulphur, there has been a need in the art to arrive at stable, non-toxic and penetration enhancing fungicidal formulation with superior absorption, penetration, rainfastness and spreading properties which render the formulation as most efficacious and a superior fungicidal formulation. Existing fungicidal compositions involve usage of adjuvants which do not promote enhanced efficacy and penetration and spreading of the actives on plant surface with improved rainfastness. Thus, it is further an object of the invention to provide a fungicidal composition which uses organosilicone surfactants such as trisiloxane ethoxylate; Silicone Ethoxylated Oil as spreading and sticking agents and bio based efficacy enhancing agents such as natural oils including blend of polyterpene resin. Therefore, it was surprising and unexpected that an agrochemical formulation (fungicidal composition) that includes organosilicone surfactants such as trisiloxane ethoxylate as spreading and sticking agents and bio based efficacy enhancing agents such as natural oils including blend of polyterpene resin with surfactant, distilled tall oil based green adjuvant, would provide a suitable formulation with enhanced sticking, rainfastness and penetration/efficacy properties. Reference may be made to US patent no. US9538761, wherein it discloses a pesticidal composition comprising sulphur, a fungicide selected from the group consisting of cymoxanil, fenhexamid, fenamidone, cyazofamid, chlorothalonil, kresoxim methyl, azoxystrobin, trifloxystrobin, pyraclostrobin, iprodione, validamycin, kasugamycin, cyprodinil, pencycuron, hexaconazole, prochloraz, epoxiconazole, prothioconaozole, trifloxystrobin, thiophanate methyl, spiroxamine, metrafenone or their salts thereof and at least one agrochemically acceptable excipient. Reference may be made to Chinese patent no. CN110710532, wherein it discloses a sterilization composition containing Trifloxystrobin and Difenoconazole in reducing or preventing citrus plants from being infected by toxins formed by aschersonia fungi, wherein the weight ratio of the Trifloxystrobin to the Difenoconazole is 20:1-1: 20. Reference may be made to Chinese patent no. CN103947650, wherein it discloses a bactericidal composition containing Trifloxystrobin and Difenoconazole and application of the bactericidal composition. In the composition, the Trifloxystrobin and the Difenoconazole are compounded and play a quite good synergistic effect, wherein the weight ratio of the Trifloxystrobin to the Difenoconazole is (1-10): (1-10). Reference may be made to Chinese patent no. CNl02067881, a novel formulation of a pesticide bactericide composition, and particularly relates to a difenoconazole and Sulphur compounded suspending agent and a preparation method thereof. 5 to 30 percent of difenoconazole and 10 to 30 percent of Sulphur, preferably 5 to 20 percent of difenoconazole and 10 to 20 percent of Sulphur are compounded. Strobilurin fungicides are broad-spectrum with rapid and highly efficient fungicidal activities, cost effective and rapidly degrade during plant metabolism. Such fungicides provide long, lasting, weather, protected disease control having superior rainfastness capabilities. Strobilurin fungicides are effective in controlling variety of fungi and pests including control of Leptosphaerulina and Curvularia species. Various Strobilurin fungicides are known in the art. Chemical structure of some of such fungicides are provided below: A zoxystrobin Py rac 1 o strobin °^ NT F luoxa strobin K rosox im -m cthy 1 CF3 CF3 W" TriTloxy strobin P ieoxysirob in Mandestrobin M eto mino strobin In particular, Trifloxystrobin has IUPAC name: methyl (2E)-(methoxyimino)(2-{[({(lE)-l-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]ethylidene}amino)oxy]methyl}phenyl)acetate, CAS RN: 141517-21-7 belongs to Oximino- acetate class having target site code C-3 and is classified as QoI-(quinone Outside inhibition) fungicide. Trifloxystrobin is a widely used fungicide. It has a low aqueous solubility, a low volatility and, based on its chemical properties, would not normally be expected to leach to groundwater. It would not be expected to be persistent in soil or water systems. It has a low mammalian oral toxicity but there is some evidence that it may cause negative reproduction or fertility effects. It is highly toxic to bird, fish and aquatic invertebrates, but less toxic to honeybees and earthworms. H3C H3C Structure of Trifloxystrobin Triazole pesticide derivatives represent the most important category of fungicides that have excellent protective, curative and eradicant power towards a wide spectrum of crop infestations. The fungicide group, demethylation inhibitors (DMI), which contain the triazole fungicides, was introduced in the mid-1970s. These fungicides are highly effective against many different fungal diseases, especially powdery mildews, rusts, and many leaf-spotting fungi. Various triazole fungicides are known in the art. Chemical structure of some of such fungicides are provided below: O CI OH *%. z*X ^ (I 1 I iruttlinwftw U-huciPiia/iilt pmpioiTwulc mcIccMartilc : fiO ^,-Cu 'tf-fi^ tf^g; cwboxin mqMVtn tlnloliinil tiadiilil N v QXoI "- J* N—1 1, means synergism observed. Evaluation of the synergistic fungicidal effect of the present composition can be established by using any synergistic fungicidal composition prepared by the process described in the above examples. For these evaluations one or more of the synergistic fungicidal compositions prepared in the examples are used here. Table 1 Second active Compound Dose Rate First active compound Trifloxystrobin Third active Compound Dose Rate g a.i./ha Dose Rate (g a.i./ha) g a.i./ha Difenoconazole 0 0 35 50 65 80 95.00 Sulphur 0 25 0 35 50 65 80 95.00 5 37.5 0 35 50 65 80 95.00 10 50 0 35 50 65 80 95.00 15 62.5 0 35 50 65 80 95.00 30 75 0 35 50 65 80 95.00 150 BIO-EFFICACY- Experimentation details and studies Laboratory screening of various formulations given in Table 1 and examples above, were carried out to evaluate their efficacy against various fungi causing fungal diseases in crop plants. The synergistic effect on growth of the pathogen in vitro as polyhouse (with temperature and humidity regulated facilities) study were studied. Results of Bio-efficacy tests comprising of Experiments below, a rating of 100 indicates 100% disease control and a rating of o indicates no disease control (relative to control). Columns labelled Avg. Observed % disease control indicates average of three replications. Columns labelled Expected indicate the expected value for each treatment mixture using the Colby equation. Treatments showing substantially greater control than expected are labelled with * Test Crop Wheat Variety: 2967 HD Efficacy tested against following diseases: Disease name Causal organism Powdery mildew Erysiphe graminis Septoria glume blotch Septoria nodorum Leaf rust Puccinia recondite Septoria leaf blotch Septoria tritici Study 1 Target disease : Powdery mildew Erysiphe graminis (causal organism) Experiment-1. Wheat seedlings were inoculated with a spore dust of Erysiphe graminis fsp.tritici, (the causal organism of wheat powdery mildew) and incubated in a growth chamber at 20° C. for 48h prior to application. The test suspensions were then sprayed to the point of run-off on the wheat seedlings. The following day the seedlings were moved to a growth chamber at 20°C. for 5days, after which disease ratings were made. Experiment-2. The test suspensions were sprayed to the point of run-of on wheat seedlings. The following day the seedlings were inoculated with a spore dust of Erysiphe graminis fsp. tritici, (the causal organism of wheat powdery mildew) and incubated in a growth chamber at 20°C.for 7days, after which disease ratings were taken. Experiment-3. The test suspensions were sprayed to the point of run-of on wheat seedlings. Five days later, the seedlings were inoculated with a spore dust of Erysiphe graminis fsp. tritici, (the causal agent of wheat powdery mildew) and incubated in a growth chamber at 20°C. for 7days, after which disease ratings were taken. Treatment Details Table 2 Sr. No. Treatment Details % of Active present per 250gm of formulation 1. Ti Trifloxystrobin 14% (Solo) 2. T2 Trifloxystrobin 20% (Solo) 3. T3 Trifloxystrobin 26% (Solo) 4. T4 Trifloxystrobin 38% (Solo) 5. Ts Difenoconazole 10% (Solo) 6. T6 Difenoconazole 20% (Solo) 7. T7 Difenoconazole 25% (Solo) 8. Ts Difenoconazole 30% (Solo) 9. T9 Sulphur 2% (Solo) 10. Tio Sulphur 3% (Solo) 11. Tn Sulphur 4% (Solo) 12. Tl2 Sulphur 6% (Solo) 13. Tl3 Sulphur 60% (Solo) 14. Tl4 Trifloxystrob in 20% + Difenoconazole 25% 15. Tl5 Trifloxystrob in 14% + Difenoconazole 10% + Sulphur 2% 16. Tl6 Trifloxystrob in 14% + Difenoconazole 20% + Sulphur 4% 17. Tl7 Trifloxystrob in 14% + Difenoconazole 25% + Sulphur 6% 18. Tl8 Trifloxystrob in 14% + Difenoconazole 30% + Sulphur 60% 19. Tl9 Trifloxystrob in 20% + Difenoconazole 10% + Sulphur 2% 20. T20 Trifloxystrob in 20% + Difenoconazole 20% + Sulphur 4% 21. T21 Trifloxystrob in 20% + Difenoconazole 25% + Sulphur 6% 22. T22 Trifloxystrob in 20% + Difenoconazole 30% + Sulphur 60% 23. T23 Trifloxystrob in 20% + Difenoconazole 25% + Sulphur 3% 24. T24 Trifloxystrob in 26% + Difenoconazole 10% + Sulphur 2% 25. T25 Trifloxystrob in 26% + Difenoconazole 20% + Sulphur 4% 26. T/26 Trifloxystrob in 26% + Difenoconazole 25% + Sulphur 6% 27. T27 Trifloxystrob in 26% + Difenoconazole 30% + Sulphur 60% 28. T28 Trifloxystrob in 38% + Difenoconazole 10% + Sulphur 2% 29. T29 Trifloxystrob in 38% + Difenoconazole 20% + Sulphur 4% 30. T30 Trifloxystrob in 38% + Difenoconazole 25% + Sulphur 6% 31. T31 Trifloxystrobin 38% + Difenoconazole 30% + Sulphur 60% Experiment 1 Table 3 Treatment s Trifloxystrobi n Difenoconazol e Sulphu r Observe d Disease control % Expecte d Disease control % Differenc e g a.i/ha Ti 35 0 0 41.30 - T2 50 0 0 75.60 T3 65 0 0 94.00 - T4 95 0 0 100.00 - Ts 0 25 0 30.30 T6 0 50 0 55.60 - T7 0 62.5 0 76.00 - Ts 0 75 0 89.60 - T9 0 0 5 14.30 Tio 0 0 7.5 19.00 - Tn 0 0 10 20.60 - T12 0 0 15 25.50 - Tl3 0 0 150 35.50 - Tl4 50 62.5 0 88.00 89.17 -1.17 Tl5 35 25 5 60.00 64.94 -4.94 Tl6 35 50 10 78.30 79.31 -1.01 Tl7 35 62.5 15 87.10 89.50 -2.40 Tl8 35 75 150 95.60 96.06 -0.46 Tl9 50 25 5 67.30 85.43 -18.13 T20 50 50 10 94.10 91.40 2.70 T21 50 62.5 15 100.00 95.64 4.36 T22 50 75 150 100.00 98.36 1.64 T23 50 62.5 7.5 94.00 95.26 -1.26 T24 65 25 5 79.90 96.42 -16.52 T25 65 50 10 94.00 97.88 -3.88 T26 65 62.5 15 100.00 98.93 1.07 T27 65 75 150 100.00 99.60 0.40 T28 95 25 5 100.00 100.00 0.00 T29 95 50 10 100.00 100.00 0.00 T30 95 62.5 15 100.00 100.00 0.00 T31 95 75 150 100.00 100.00 0.00 Experiment 2 Table 4 Treatment s Trifloxystrobi n Difenoconazol e Sulphu r Observe d Disease control % Expecte d Disease control % Differenc e g a.i/ha Ti 35 0 0 49.00 - T2 50 0 0 70.00 T3 65 0 0 88.60 - T4 95 0 0 100.00 - Ts 0 25 0 32.00 T6 0 50 0 50.30 - T7 0 62.5 0 68.60 - Ts 0 75 0 82.60 - T9 0 0 5 0.00 Tio 0 0 7.5 0.00 - Tn 0 0 10 0.00 - T12 0 0 15 4.60 - Tl3 0 0 150 6.60 - Tl4 50 62.5 0 83.66 90.58 -6.92 Tl5 35 25 5 61.00 65.32 -4.32 Tl6 35 50 10 70.00 74.65 -4.65 Tl7 35 62.5 15 85.00 84.72 0.28 Tl8 35 75 150 93.00 91.71 1.29 Tl9 50 25 5 77.30 79.60 -2.30 T20 50 50 10 88.00 85.09 2.91 T21 50 62.5 15 94.00 91.01 2.99 T22 50 75 150 96.00 95.12 0.88 T23 50 62.5 7.5 88.00 90.52 -2.58 T24 65 25 5 90.00 92.25 -2.25 T25 65 50 10 95.00 94.33 0.67 T26 65 62.5 15 97.00 96.59 0.41 T27 65 75 150 98.00 98.15 -0.15 T28 95 25 5 99.30 100.00 -0.70 T29 95 50 10 100.00 100.00 0.00 T30 95 62.5 15 100.00 100.00 0.00 T31 95 75 150 100.00 100.00 0.00 Experiment 3 Table 5 Treatments Trifloxystrobin Difenoconazole Sulphur Observed Disease control % Expected Disease control % Difference g a.i/ha Ti 35 0 0 39.00 - T2 50 0 0 62.00 T3 65 0 0 66.00 - T4 95 0 0 98.00 - Ts 0 25 0 27.00 T6 0 50 0 32.00 - T7 0 62.5 0 44.00 - Ts 0 75 0 50.00 - T9 0 0 5 0.00 Tio 0 0 7.5 0.00 - Tn 0 0 10 0.00 - Tl2 0 0 15 0.00 - Tl3 0 0 150 2.66 - Tl4 50 62.5 0 75.00 78.72 -3.72 Tl5 35 25 5 53.66 55.47 -1.81 Tl6 35 50 10 55.66 58.52 -2.86 Tl7 35 62.5 15 64.00 65.84 -1.84 Tl8 35 75 150 69.66 70.31 -0.65 Tl9 50 25 5 66.30 72.26 -5.96 T20 50 50 10 75.00 74.16 0.84 Til 50 62.5 15 83.00 78.72 4.28 T22 50 75 150 86.00 81.51 4.49 T23 50 62.5 7.5 73.33 78.72 -5.39 T24 65 25 5 69.30 75.18 -5.88 T25 65 50 10 77.00 76.88 0.12 T26 65 62.5 15 86.00 80.96 5.04 T27 65 75 150 93.33 83.45 9.88 T28 95 25 5 94.00 98.54 -4.54 T29 95 50 10 100.00 98.64 1.36 T30 95 62.5 15 100.00 98.88 1.12 T31 95 75 100.00 99.03 0.97 Study 2: Target disease Septoria glume blotch Septoria nodorum (causal organism) Experiment 4: Wheat seedlings were inoculated with a spore Suspension of Septoria nodorum (the causal organism of Septoria glume blotch) and incubated in a saturated atmosphere at 20°C. for 48h. The test suspensions were then sprayed to the point of run-off on the wheat seedlings. The following day the seedlings were moved to a growth chamber at 20°C. for 7days, after which disease ratings were recorded. Experiment 5: The test suspensions were sprayed to the point of run-of on wheat seedlings. The following day the seedlings were inoculated with a spore Suspension of Septoria nodorum (the causal organism of Septoria glume blotch) and incubated in a saturated atmosphere at 20°C. for 48h, and then moved to a growth chamber at 20°C. for 8days, after which disease ratings were recorded. Experiment 6: The test suspensions were sprayed to the point of run-of on wheat seedlings. Five days later, the seedlings were inoculated with a spore suspension of Septoria nodorum (the causal organism of Septoria glume blotch) and incubated in a saturated atmosphere at 20°C. for 48h, and then moved to a growth chamber at 20°C. for 8days, after which disease ratings were recorded. Experiment 4 Table 6 Treatments Trifloxystrobin Difenoconazole Sulphur Observed Disease control % Expected Disease control % Difference g a.i/ha Ti 35 0 0 0.00 - T2 50 0 0 5.00 T3 65 0 0 10.00 - T4 95 0 0 30.00 - Ts 0 25 0 13.00 T6 0 50 0 70.00 - T7 0 62.5 0 85.00 - Ts 0 75 0 97.00 - T9 0 0 5 0.00 Tio 0 0 7.5 0.00 - Tn 0 0 10 0.00 - T12 0 0 15 0.00 - Tl3 0 0 150 5.00 - Tl4 50 62.5 0 85.30 85.75 -0.45 Tl5 35 25 5 13.00 13.00 0.00 Tl6 35 50 10 55.00 70.00 -15.00 Tl7 35 62.5 15 90.00 85.00 5.00 Tl8 35 75 150 100.00 97.15 2.85 Tl9 50 25 5 16.60 17.35 -0.75 T20 50 50 10 66.00 71.50 -5.50 T21 50 62.5 15 93.33 85.75 7.58 T22 50 75 150 100.00 97.29 2.71 T23 50 62.5 7.5 81.67 85.75 -4.08 T24 65 25 5 18.00 21.70 -3.70 T25 65 50 10 72.00 73.00 -1.00 T26 65 62.5 15 92.00 86.50 5.50 T27 65 75 150 100.00 97.44 2.57 T28 95 25 5 37.30 39.10 -1.80 T29 95 50 10 83.60 79.00 4.60 T30 95 62.5 15 93.30 89.50 3.80 T31 95 75 150 98.00 98.01 0.00 Experiment 5 Table 7 Treatments Trifloxystrobin Difenoconazole Sulphur Observed Disease control % Expected Disease control % Difference g a.i/ha Ti 35 0 0 0.00 - T2 50 0 0 0.00 T3 65 0 0 5.00 - T4 95 0 0 15.00 - Ts 0 25 0 18.00 T6 0 50 0 65.00 - T7 0 62.5 0 91.00 - Ts 0 75 0 99.00 - T9 0 0 5 0.00 Tio 0 0 7.5 0.00 - Tn 0 0 10 0.00 - Tl2 0 0 15 3.33 - Tl3 0 0 150 8.66 - Tl4 50 62.5 0 91.00 91.00 0.00 Tl5 35 25 5 18.00 18.00 0.00 Tl6 35 50 10 64.00 65.00 -1.00 Tl7 35 62.5 15 94.66 91.30 3.36 Tl8 35 75 150 98.66 99.09 -0.43 Tl9 50 25 5 18.00 18.00 0.00 T20 50 50 10 70.00 65.00 5.00 Til 50 62.5 15 94.66 91.30 3.36 T22 50 75 150 86.00 99.09 -13.09 T23 50 62.5 7.5 54.33 91.00 -36.67 T24 65 25 5 21.33 22.10 -0.77 T25 65 50 10 77.00 66.75 10.25 T26 65 62.5 15 95.33 91.73 3.60 T27 65 75 150 99.00 99.13 -0.13 T28 95 25 5 36.00 30.30 5.70 T29 95 50 10 84.66 70.25 14.41 T30 95 62.5 15 97.00 92.60 4.40 T31 95 75 150 99.00 99.22 -0.22 Experiment 6 Table 8 Treatments Trifloxystrobin Difenoconazole Sulphur Observed Disease control % Expected Disease control % Difference g a.i/ha Ti 35 0 0 0.00 - T2 50 0 0 0.00 T3 65 0 0 2.33 - T4 95 0 0 10.00 - Ts 0 25 0 10.00 T6 0 50 0 58.66 - T7 0 62.5 0 82.66 - Ts 0 75 0 90.66 - T9 0 0 5 0.00 T10 0 0 7.5 0.00 - T11 0 0 10 0.00 - T12 0 0 15 1.66 - T13 0 0 150 5.00 - Tl4 50 62.5 0 81.66 82.66 -1.00 Tl5 35 25 5 10.00 10.00 0.00 Tl6 35 50 10 57.33 58.66 -1.33 Tl7 35 62.5 15 90.00 82.95 7.05 Tl8 35 75 150 96.33 91.13 5.20 Tl9 50 25 5 9.66 10.00 -0.34 T20 50 50 10 66.00 58.66 7.34 T21 50 62.5 15 95.33 82.95 12.38 T22 50 75 150 98.66 91.13 7.53 T23 50 62.5 7.5 57.87 82.66 -24.79 T24 65 25 5 12.00 12.10 -0.10 T25 65 50 10 72.00 59.62 12.38 T26 65 62.5 15 93.66 83.35 10.31 T27 65 75 150 99.00 91.33 7.67 T28 95 25 5 17.33 19.00 -1.67 T29 95 50 10 83.60 62.79 20.81 T30 95 62.5 15 93.30 84.65 8.65 T31 95 75 150 98.66 92.01 6.65 Study 3: Target disease Leaf rust Puccinia recondita Experiment 7: Wheat seedlings were inoculated with a spore Suspension of Puccinia recondita (the causal organism of wheat leaf rust) 72hours prior to application and incubated in a saturated atmosphere at 20°C. for24h, then moved to a growth chamber at 20°C.for48h.The test suspensions were then sprayed to the point of run-off on the wheat seedlings. The following day the seedlings were moved to a growth chamber at 20°C. for 4 days, after which disease ratings were recorded. Experiment 8: The test suspensions were sprayed to the point of run-of on wheat seedlings. The following day the seedlings were inoculated with a spore suspension of Puccinia recondite (the causal organism of wheat leaf rust) and incubated in a saturated atmosphere at 20°C. for 24h, and then moved to a growth chamber at 20°C. for 7days, after which disease ratings were made. Experiment 7 Table 9 Treatments Trifloxystrobin Difenoconazole Sulphur Observed Disease control % Expected Disease control % Difference g a.i/ha Ti 35 0 0 30.00 - T2 50 0 0 60.00 T3 65 0 0 72.00 - T4 95 0 0 90.00 - Ts 0 25 0 16.00 T6 0 50 0 39.00 - T7 0 62.5 0 60.00 - Ts 0 75 0 71.60 - T9 0 0 5 0.00 Tio 0 0 7.5 0.00 - Tn 0 0 10 0.00 - T12 0 0 15 0.00 - Tl3 0 0 150 5.00 - Tl4 50 62.5 0 75.00 84.00 -9.00 Tl5 35 25 5 40.33 41.20 -0.87 Tl6 35 50 10 57.30 57.30 0.00 Tl7 35 62.5 15 68.33 72.00 -3.67 Tl8 35 75 150 89.33 81.11 8.22 Tl9 50 25 5 64.33 66.40 -2.07 T20 50 50 10 76.00 75.60 0.40 T21 50 62.5 15 95.33 84.00 11.33 T22 50 75 150 98.66 89.21 9.45 T23 50 62.5 7.5 82.67 84.00 -1.33 T24 65 25 5 75.33 76.48 -1.15 T25 65 50 10 86.00 82.92 3.08 T26 65 62.5 15 93.66 88.80 4.86 T27 65 75 150 99.00 92.45 6.55 T28 95 25 5 85.66 91.60 -5.94 T29 95 50 10 94.00 93.90 0.10 T30 95 62.5 15 98.00 96.00 2.00 T31 95 75 150 100.00 97.30 2.70 Experiment 8 Table 10 Treatments Trifloxystrobin Difenoconazole Sulphur Observed Disease control % Expected Disease control % Difference g a.i/ha Ti 35 0 0 34.00 - T2 50 0 0 72.00 T3 65 0 0 83.30 - T4 95 0 0 88.66 - Ts 0 25 0 20.33 T6 0 50 0 40.00 - T7 0 62.5 0 65.60 - Ts 0 75 0 73.00 - T9 0 0 5 0.00 Tio 0 0 7.5 1.00 Tn 0 0 10 2.33 - Tl2 0 0 15 5.66 - Tl3 0 0 150 10.00 - Tl4 50 62.5 0 87.66 90.37 -2.71 Tl5 35 25 5 45.66 47.42 -1.76 Tl6 35 50 10 61.00 61.32 -0.32 Tl7 35 62.5 15 76.60 78.58 -1.98 Tl8 35 75 150 90.33 83.96 6.37 Tl9 50 25 5 75.66 77.69 -2.03 T20 50 50 10 86.66 83.59 3.07 T21 50 62.5 15 94.66 90.91 3.75 T22 50 75 150 93.00 93.20 -0.20 T23 50 62.5 7.5 89.00 90.46 -1.46 T24 65 25 5 84.00 86.70 -2.70 T25 65 50 10 92.30 90.21 2.09 T26 65 62.5 15 95.33 94.58 0.75 T27 65 75 150 99.00 95.94 3.06 T/28 95 25 5 90.00 90.97 -0.97 T29 95 50 10 96.60 93.35 3.25 T30 95 62.5 15 100.00 96.32 3.68 T31 95 75 150 100.00 97.24 2.76 It is evident from the experiments above that better and optimum disease control is observed by the addition of sub-fungicidal amount sulphur in the formulation of the present invention as compared to the binary composition comprising strobilurin and azole fungicides. Study 4: Test Crop Tomato Variety: Heemsohna Efficacy tested against following disease: Disease name Causal organism Early blight Alternaria solani Field study was conducted for two seasons in 2019 & 2020 at Hansi (Haryana), Nursery was raised and healthy saplings of 28 days after sowing were collected for transplanting in the main field. Same plant population was maintained in each treatment plot. Plot was kept free of weeds by manual hand weedings at 20, 45 and 60 DAT. Disease severity was recorded from 3 plants/treatment after the specified days after each sprays and the mean was considered for further analysis. Other data on phytotoxicity and yield was also recorded from each plot. Yield data was converted on per Hectare (Ha) basis. 1 st Spray - At the appearance of initial symptoms of disease 2nd Spray - 15 days after the First Spray Plot Size : 5X4m = 20Sq. m. No of treatments ; 9 Trial layout Randomised block design with Three replications Tomato Variety Heemsohna Spacing 90 X 60 cm Fertilizer N:P:K 50:25:25 kg/ha Sprayer used Knapsack sprayer Spray volume 1.25 litre per 20 sq. m. plot Table 11 1 Disease severity : On 0 Day (pre count), 3rd, 7th and 14th Day after each spray disease severity was recorded and converted to % in comparison to control plot. 2 Phytotoxicity: Recorded plant phytotoxicity after sprays based on 0-10 scale of assessment of yellowing, Stunting, Chlorosis, Leaf tip injury, Wilting, Hyponasty/Epinasty for all treatments. 3 Yield: 1st., 2nd picking, subsequent the final picking. The total yield was converted in Mt/ha The Disease severity was recorded by using the following scale prescribed by Mayee & Datar, 1986 Table 12 Score Disease symptoms of Early blight 0 Disease free leaves of test plants 1 Sparingly small irregular brown spots covering maximum of 1% of leaf surface area 3 Small irregular, brown spots with concentric rings covering of 1% - 10% of leaf surface area 5 Enlarging of lesions, irregular, brown in colour with concentric rings, covering ll-25%> of leaf surface area. 7 Lesions coalesce to form irregular, dark brown patches with concentric rings covering 26-50%> of the leaf surface area, Lesions also appear on stems and petioles of affected plants. 9 Lesions coalesce to form irregular, dark brown patches with concentric rings covering >51% of the leaf surface area, Lesions also appear on stems and petioles of affected plants. Table 13 Details of the treatments done Mean of Two sprays Difference \o Active Ingredient g a.i./ha dose Formulation Quantity (g/ha) Observed efficacy %on 14th DAT Expected Efficacy according to Colby (%) Tank- mix(Trifloxystrobin 20% WG + Difenoconazole 25% EC + Sulphur 80% WG) 50+50+15 115 250+200+18.75* 72.00 39.20 32.80 Trifloxystrobin 20% WG+ Difenoconazole 25% EC+ Sulphur 6% WG 50+62.5+7.5 120 250+250+9.375* 65.33 69.40 -4.07 (Trifloxystrobin 20% + Difenoconazole 25% + Sulphur 6%) SC 50+62.50+15 127.5 250 86.66 47.75 38.91 Tank- mix (Trifloxystrobin 20% WG + Difenoconazole 25% EC + Sulphur 80% WG) 50+62.5+30 142.4 250+300+37.7* 87.00 48.85 38.15 Tank- mix (Trifloxystrobin 20% WG + Difenoconazole 25% EC + Sulphur 80% WG) 50+62.5+150 262.5 250+300+187.5* 82.00 50.50 31.50 Tank- mix (Trifloxystrobin 20% WG + Difenoconazole 25% EC + Sulphur 80% WG) 50+62.5+500 612.5 250+300+625* 80.00 57.65 22.35 Tank- mix (Trifloxystrobin 20% WG + Difenoconazole 25% EC + Sulphur 80% WG) 50+75+15 140 250+300+18.75* 88.00 59.15 28.85 (Trifloxystrobin 20% + Difenoconazole 25% + Sulphur 6%) SC 100+125+30 255 500 85.60 61.87 23.73 Trifloxystrobin 20% WG + Difenoconazole 25% EC 50+50 100 250+200* 36.00 0 Trifloxystrobin 20% WG + Difenoconazole 25% EC 50+62.5 112.5 250+250* 45.00 1 Trifloxystrobin 20% WG + Difenoconazole 25% EC 50+75 125 250+300 57.00 2 Trifloxystrobin 20% WG + Difenoconazole 25% EC 100+125 225 500+500* 59.00 3 Sulphur 80% WG 500 625 23.00 4 Sulphur 80% WG 150 187.5 10.00 5 Sulphur 80% WG 30 37.5 7.00 6 Sulphur 80% WG 15 18.75 5.00 7 Sulphur 80% WG 7.5 9.375 1.30 - Phytotoxicity Observations Table 14 Treatment s Details of Treatment Dose a.i./ha Dose Formulation( s) gor ml/Ha Phytotoxicity % after 14 days of spray (mean of 2 sprays) On leave s On flowers and Flower drops Fruits and fruit drops Ti Tank- mix (Trifloxystro bin 20% WG + Difenoconaz ole 25% EC + Sulphur 80% WG) 50+50+15 115 250+200+18.7 5* NP NP NP T2 Trifloxystrob in 20% WG + Difenconazol e 25% EC + Sulphur 80% WG 50+62.5+7. 5 120 250+250+9.37 5* NP NP NP T3 Trifloxystrob in 20% + Difenoconaz ole 25% + Sulphur 6% SC 50+62.50+ 15 127. 5 250 NP NP NP T4 Tank mix (Trifloxystro bin 20% WG + Difenoconaz 50+62.5+3 0 142. 4 250+300+37.5 * NP NP NP ole 25% EC + Sulphur 80% WG) Ts Tank- mix (Trifloxystro bin 20% WG + Difenoconaz ole 25% EC + Sulphur 80% WG) 50+62.5+1 50 262. 5 250+300+187. 5* NP NP NP T6 Tank- mix (Trifloxystro bin 20% WG + Difenoconaz ole 25% EC + Sulphur 80% WG) 50+62.5+5 00 612. 5 250+300+625 * NP 2.66 1.33 T7 Tank- mix (Trifloxystro bin 20% WG + Difenoconaz ole 25% EC + Sulphur 80% WG) 50+75+15 140 250+300+18.7 5* NP NP NP Ts Tank- mix (Trifloxystro bin 20% WG + Difenoconaz ole 25% EC 100+125+3 0 255 500 NP NP NP + Sulphur 80% WG) T9 Trifloxystrob in 20% WG + Difenoconaz ole 25% EC 50+50 100 250+200* NP NP NP Tio Trifloxystrob in 20% WG + Difenoconaz ole 25% EC 50+62.5 112. 5 250+250* NP NP NP Tn Trifloxystrob in 20% WG + Difenoconaz ole 25% EC 50+75 125 250+300* NP NP NP T12 Trifloxystrob in 20% WG + Difenoconaz ole 25% EC 100+125 225 500+500* NP NP NP Tl3 Sulphur 80% WG 500 625 NP 1.66 NP Tl4 Sulphur 80% WG 150 187.5 NP NP NP Tl5 Sulphur 80% WG 30 37.5 NP NP NP Tl6 Sulphur 80% WG 15 18.75 NP NP NP Tl7 Sulphur 80% WG 7.5 9.375 NP NP NP *NP: No Phytotoxicity At higher doses of Sulphur there were occasional lesions which recovered with passing of time. At low concentrations of Sulphur there was no phytotoxicity either on leaves or fruiting bodies. However, there was a reported greening effect due to the composition of present invention at all the tested doses. Effect on Yield of Tomato Table 15 Treatme nts Details of Treatment Dose a.i./ha Dose Formulatio n(s) g or ml/Ha Tomato yield kg/ha (observed) % yield increase over control First season Seco nd seaso n Mea n of two seaso ns Ti Tank- mix (Trifloxystr obin 20% WG + Difenocona zole 25%EC + Sulphur 80% WG) 50+50+1 5 115 250+200+18 .75* 19.84 18.77 19.30 5 141.7658 109 T2 Tank- mix (Trifloxystr obin 20% WG + Difenocona zole 25% EC + Sulphur 80% WG) 50+62.5+ 7.5 120 250+250+9. 375* 19.33 17.67 18.50 131.68 T3 Trifloxystro bin 20% + Difenocona zole 25% + Sulphur 6% WG 50+62.50 +15 127 .5 250 21.45 20.98 21.21 5 165.6856 606 T4 Tank mix (Trifloxystr obin 20% WG + Difenocona zole 25% EC + Sulphur 80% WG) 50+62.5+ 30 142 .4 250+300+37 .5* 20.10 19.67 19.88 5 149.0294 302 Ts Tank- mix (Trifloxystr obin 20% WG + Difenocona zole 25% EC + Sulphur 80% WG) 50+62.5+ 150 262 .5 250+300+18 7.5* 18.43 18 18.21 5 128.1152 16 T6 Tank- mix (Trifloxystr obin 20% WG + Difenocona zole 25% EC + Sulphur 80% WG) 50+62.5+ 500 612 .5 250+300+62 5* 17.70 17.8 17.75 122.2917 971 T7 Tank- mix (Trifloxystr obin 20% WG + Difenocona zole 25% EC + Sulphur 80% WG) 50+75+1 5 140 250+300+18 .75* 21.00 20.9 20.95 162.3669 38 Ts Tank- mix (Trifloxystr obin 20% WG + Difenocona zole 25% EC + Sulphur 80% WG) 100+125 +30 255 500 20.80 21.05 20.92 5 162.0538 51 T9 Trifloxystro bin 20% WG + Difenocona zole 25% EC 50+50 100 250+200* 16.66 17.1 16.88 111.3963 682 Tio Trifloxystro bin 20% WG + Difenocona zole 25% EC 50+62.5 112 .5 250+250* 18.23 17.98 18.10 5 126.7376 331 Tn Trifloxystro bin 20% 50+75 125 250+300* 18.90 17.88 18.39 130.3068 253 WG + Difenocona zole 25% EC Tl2 Trifloxystro bin 20% WG + Difenocona zole 25% EC 100+125 225 500+500* 18.00 18.4 18.2 127.9273 638 Tl3 Sulphur 80% WG 500 625 8.54 8.6 8.57 7.326236 694 Tl4 Sulphur 80% WG 150 187.5 8.28 8.42 8.35 4.571070 758 Tl5 Sulphur 80% WG 30 37.5 7.96 8.33 8.145 2.003757 044 Tl6 Sulphur 80% WG 15 18.75 8.05 7.88 7.965 0.250469 63 Tl7 Sulphur 80% WG 7.5 9.375 7.67 8.33 8.00 0.19 Tl8 Untreated Control - - - 7.74 8.23 7.985 0 Storage stability and shelf life study Table 16 (Storage Stability test of the composition of present invention) Parameters Specificat ion (In House) Initial Cold storage stability at 0 + 2 °C for 14 days Heat stability study at 54±2°C for 14 days Heat stability study at 54±2°C for 21 days Heat stability study at 54 + 2 °C for 28 days Heat stability study at 54 + 2 °C for 35 days Heat stabilit y study at 54 + 2°C for 42 days Description Off-white to light brown Complies Complies Complies Complies Complies Complies Compl ies Trifloxystr obin Content 21-19 20.4 20.4 20.3 20.3 20.2 20.1 20.1 Trifloxystr obin Suspensibil ity Min 60% 97.6 97.5 96.5 96.4 96.1 95.8 95.7 Difenocona zole Content 23.75-26.25 25.5 25.4 25.4 25.3 25.1 24.9 24.8 Difenocona zole Suspensibil ity Min 60% 99.3 99.3 98.7 98.7 98.2 97.8 97.5 Sulphur Content 5.7-6.6 6.2 6.2 6.1 6.1 6 6 6 Sulphur Suspensibil ity Min. 60 99.9 99.9 99.2 99.2 98.9 98.7 98.4 pH(l% aqeous Solution) 4 to 9 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 Wettability Max 120 s 67 69 67 67 71 71 71 Wet Sieve(Passe s through 75 micron) Min 98.0% 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 Bulk Density 0.25-0.85 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 Moisture Content Max 5.0% 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 ShelfLife Study Details Table 17 Room temperature storage data Parameters Specifica tion Study Duration In House 1 month 6 month 12 month 24 months 30 months 36 months 42 mont hs Description Off-white to light brown Complies Complies Complies Complies Complie s Complies Com plies Trifloxystrobin Content 21-19 20.4 20.4 20.3 20.3 20.2 20.1 20.1 Trifloxystrobin Suspensibility Min 60% 97.6 97.5 96.5 96.4 96.2 96.1 96 Difenoconazole Content 23.75-26.25 25.5 25.4 25.4 25.3 25.2 25.1 25.1 Difenoconazole Suspensibility Min 60% 99.3 99.3 98.7 98.7 98.6 98.4 98.3 Sulphur Content 5.7-6.6 6.2 6.2 6.1 6.1 6 6 6 Sulphur Suspensibility Min. 60 99.9 99.9 99.2 99.2 98.9 98.7 98.5 pH (1% aqeous Solution) 4 to 9 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 Wettability Max 120 s 67 69 67 67 71 71 71 Wet Sieve(Passes through 75 micron) Min 98.0% 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 Bulk Density 0.25-0.85 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 Moisture Content Max 5.0% 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 The shelf life of commercially available formulation comprising strobilurin and triazole fungicide is 2 years. However, the composition of the present invention is found to be stable for at least 42 months. Effect of Sulphur on dispersibility of WPG formulation Table 18 WG (Water Pispersible Granule) Sr. No. Component Composition 1 2 3 4 5 1 Trifloxystrobin Technical 20 20 20 20 20 2 Difenoconazole Technical 25 25 25 25 25 3 Sulphur Technical 0 2 4 6 7 4 Sodium Polycarboxylate 8.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 10.00 5 Sodium Lauryl Sulfate 6.00 7.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 6 Sodium ligno sulfonate 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 Sodium alkylnaphthalenesulfonate, formaldehyde condensate 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 8 Silicone based antifoam 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 9 Blend of poly terpene resin(natural oils) 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 10 Precipitated Silica 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 11 China Clay QSto Make 100 QSto Make 100 QSto Make 100 QSto Make 100 QSto Make 100 Table 19 WG (Water Dispersible Granule) Sr. No. Parameter Composition as per Table 18 1 2 3 4 5 1 Dispersibility 48.67% 65.39% 87.21% 96.34% 96.92 It is evident that the dispensability increases with the increase in % of Sulphur content. It was observed that with the addition of optimum amount of Sulphur along with adjuvants, the formulation had increased dispersibility and hence was homogeneous throughout its shelf life. Thus, the formulation of the present invention showed increased uptake of strobilurin and triazole actives and is found to be more efficacious. From the foregoing it will be observed that numerous modifications and variations can be effectuated without departing from the true spirit and scope of the novel concepts of the present invention. It is to be understood that no limitations with respect to the specific embodiments illustrated is intended or should be inferred. It should be understood that all such modifications and improvements have been deleted herein for the sake of conciseness and readability but are properly within the scope of the following claims. WE CLAIM: [CLAIM 1]. A synergistic fungicidal composition comprising of: a. At least one Strobilurin fungicide or its agrochemically acceptable salts in the range of 5-50% by weight of the formulation; and b. At least one Triazole fungicide or its agrochemically acceptable salts in the range of 5- 70% by weight of the formulation; and c. Sulphur as a catalyst and or a performance enhancer in the range of 1-7% by weight; and d. One or more of agrochemically acceptable adjuvants [CLAIM 2]. A synergistic fungicidal composition comprising of: a. At least one Strobilurin fungicide or its agrochemically acceptable salts in the range of 5-50%) by weight of the formulation; and b. At least one Triazole fungicide or its agrochemically acceptable salts in the range of 5- 70%) by weight of the formulation; and c. Sulphur as a catalyst and or a performance enhancer in the range of l-7%> by weight; and d. organosilicone surfactants as spreading and sticking agents and bio based efficacy enhancing agents. e. One or more of agrochemically acceptable adjuvants [CLAIM 3]. The fungicidal composition as claimed in claim 1 and 2, wherein Sulphur is present in an amount below fungicidal active dose. [CLAIM 4]. The fungicidal composition as claimed in claim 1 and 2, wherein Sulphur is present in an amount of 6%> weight of the total composition. [CLAIM 5]. The fungicidal composition as claimed in claim 1 and 2 wherein the retention and uptake of active ingredients is improved. [CLAIM 6]. The fungicidal composition as claimed in claim 1 and 2, wherein the agrochemically acceptable excipients are adjuvants, wetting agent, dispersing agent, thickening agent, antifoaming agent, anti-freezing agent, dye, filler and preservative thereof. [CLAIM 7]. The fungicidal composition as claimed in claim 1 and 2, wherein the agrochemically acceptable adjuvants: Silicone Ethoxylated Oil, Polyvinyl Pyrrolidon-,Poly vinyl Alcohol, Blend of poly terpene resin, polyterpene and emulsifier blend is a sticking and spreading adjuvant and is present in the range of 01-10% [CLAIM 8]. The fungicidal composition as claimed in claim 1 and 2, wherein agrochemically acceptable wetting agent is selected form the group consisting of Tristyrylphenol ethoxylate nonionic emulsifier/ mixture of non-ionic surfactants & Alkoxylated Alcohol/Block copolymer and mixtures thereof and present in the range of 0.5-10% weight of the total composition. [CLAIM 9]. The fungicidal composition as claimed in claim 1 and 2, wherein agrochemically acceptable dispersing agent is selected form the group consisting of Tristyrylphenol Ethoxylate Amine salt of phosphate tristyryl phenol ethylated /Acrylic Copolymer/ Ethoxylated Tristryl phenol Sulphate, Naphthalene sulfonic acid, sodium salt condensate with formaldehyde, Ethoxylated oleyl cetyl alcohol, Polyalkelene glycol ether and mixtures thereof and present in the range of 0.5-10%> weight of the total composition. [CLAIM 10]. The fungicidal composition as claimed in claim 1 and 2, wherein agrochemically acceptable antifoaming agent is selected form the group consisting of silicon emulsion based anti-foam agents, Siloxane polyalkyleneoxide, trisiloxane ethoxylates and mixtures thereof and present in the range of 0.01-1%> weight of the total composition. [CLAIM 11]. The fungicidal composition as claimed in claim 1 and 2, wherein agrochemically acceptable antifreezing agent is selected from the group consisting of Glycol, Propylene Glycol, Mono ethylene glycol, Glycerin and mixtures thereof and present in the range of 0.1-10%) weight of the total composition. [CLAIM 12]. The fungicidal composition as claimed in claim 1 and 2, wherein agrochemically acceptable thickening agent is selected from the group consisting of Polysaccharides/carboxymethyl cellulose/Bentonite Clay and mixtures thereof and present in the range of 0.01-3% weight of the total formulation. [CLAIM 13]. The fungicidal composition as claimed in claim 1 and 2, wherein agrochemically acceptable anti-bacterial agent is selected from Benzisothiazolin-3-one or Formaldehyde and present in the range of 0.01-1% weight of the total composition. [CLAIM 14]. The fungicidal composition as claimed in claim 1 and 2, wherein agrochemically acceptable filler is selected from Silicon Dioxide/China -Clay/Kaolin/Tale/starch and present in the range of 0.1-5% weight of the total composition. [CLAIM 15].The fungicidal composition as claimed in claim 1 and 2, wherein the formulation is in the form of emulsifiable concentrates (EC), wettable powders (WP), flowable slurry (FS), microemulsions, capsulated suspension, granules (GR), water dispersible granules (WG), ZC composition, pellets, seed dressings or emulsions for seed treatment, broadcast granules, gel, emulsion in water or oil dispersions , Suspension concentrate (SC), Suspo-emulsion (SE)or combination thereof. [CLAFM 16]. The fungicidal composition as claimed in claim 1 and 2, wherein the formulation is applied to a plant/crop by spraying, rubbing, dusting, pouring, mist blowing, soil mixing, drenching, dipping or drip irrigation. [CLAFM 17]. The fungicidal composition as claimed in claim 1 and 2, exhibits fungicidal activity against Powdery mildew, Septoria glume blotch, Leaf rust, Septoria leaf blotch [CLAFM 18]. The fungicidal composition as claimed in claim 1 and 2, exhibits fungicidal activity against fungi in groundnut, sunflower, rapseed, mustard, soyabean, cereals, apple, grapes, mango, banana, chilly, tomato, potato and peas.